Canadian vs. Nordic large cities (real estate, 2013, construction)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did street view in the first photo, the houses are okay if a little dated, the lawns are unkempt, not sure if perhaps that is how they like it, but it doesn't look very appealing to me.
I agree European town centers are prettier than North American, but ours are built for comfort and convenience. That was kind of the point of the new world, to do things differently.
I have to say the downtown Nordic centers look quite nice and are more walkable. Look at the top photo, there are still large surface parking lots, surrounded by various skyscrapers. Not the most interesting of walks. But the post above yours had a delightful downtown with cafes, etc...
Or we just don't like living in environment where we are packed like sardines, we like opening the window and hearing birds chirping and the sound of the trees flowing in the wind without the sound of squeaky breaks and car horns.
Sardines:
And to add: we are in the position that the Nordic capitals are growing more than housing is constructed, while in NA cities are losing population, because the inner city areas aren't lucrative. The tide has turned here.
Looks like an European city. Livable. That might come as a surprise to you. You Americans say you're from Atlanta, Chicago, LA, Baltimore or something, but you live 30 miles from the city, in a totally different community. Because the city centres are "unlivable", filled with criminals and poor people.
The situation is not the same here. The centre areas are the most valuable.
No doubt that there are some Nordic urban centers are more liveable than those of some American cities, but you seem to be confusing the projects/hood with "city centers". Areas filled with the poor and criminals are not in the city centers. City centers are usually expensive areas to live in with many high-income people. Poor areas tend to located on the fringes of cities, or in certain sub-sections. The pictures of urban centers you have provided just like the urban centers in a small city like Baltimore or Cincinnati.
Anyways, the discussion is on Canada, not the US. I am not sure why you are bringing a foreign country into the mix. I used to live in Montreal and your pictures look exactly like the off-the-beaten-path parts. That isn't a bad thing, but I find it odd that you would use pictures of below-average looking places to prove that Nordic cities are superior to Canadian cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach
The second view looks like a lower middle class neighborhood in Canada/US. Yet it probably has prices of Beverly Hills or Hawaii.
I have to say the downtown Nordic centers look quite nice and are more walkable. Look at the top photo, there are still large surface parking lots, surrounded by various skyscrapers. Not the most interesting of walks. .
That wasn't the best picture of a neighbourhood main street in Toronto.
I have to say the downtown Nordic centers look quite nice and are more walkable. Look at the top photo, there are still large surface parking lots, surrounded by various skyscrapers. Not the most interesting of walks. But the post above yours had a delightful downtown with cafes, etc...
However, for suburbia, North America rules.
They sure are but the lack of large condo buildings that you see in Canadian cities doesnt make it as dense.
if you want true density you build upward, they are good at doing that in Canada.
i do agree Nordic cities seem quite livable, better infrastructure for urban living, Oslo has high speed rail to its airport plus i'm pretty sure the whole world looks to Stockholm when a city wants to upgrade its bicycle infrastructure.
And to add: we are in the position that the Nordic capitals are growing more than housing is constructed, while in NA cities are losing population, because the inner city areas aren't lucrative. The tide has turned here.
Really? didn't know that
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj
Anyways, the discussion is on Canada, not the US. I am not sure why you are bringing a foreign country into the mix. I used to live in Montreal and your pictures look exactly like the off-the-beaten-path parts. That isn't a bad thing, but I find it odd that you would use pictures of below-average looking places to prove that Nordic cities are superior to Canadian cities.
Welcome to the world forum...
forum is about Canadian cities and Nordic cities and every once in a while you get the "Oh but America this!!!" "Oh but America that!!" comments.
hobbesdj, I understand completely the difference in the US. Commercial downtown centre = well off. Inner city = poor. Suburbs = rich.
But wasn't the whole idea of CITIES, not suburbs? Here, the closer the city centre you go, the more expensive the areas get. It was not about Ellicott City near Baltimore, but Helsinki right here:
What is it you eat in the USA that you cannot find here in Sweden...
Jätte många restauranger.....
However, the pizza and pizza salad & kebab tallrik in Sweden is to die for!
I also love lösviktgodis (candy), wienerbröd, havrebollar, leverpastej yummu
This type of urbanism exists in Canadian cities as well. The architecture is different but certainly the central areas of the larger Canadian cities have a lot of this. You can pick a view that shows a highway access point to the downtown if you want to disprove me, but most downtowns in Canada are not highway-choked. And almost every city in the world has these highway access roads in its downtown, even central Paris:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.